The expansion of Novels

In Franco Moretti's article, he explores the history of novels and their trends. He shifts the perspective of reading novels from viewing them each individually and in catagories to seeing all literary works as a whole over time. Moretti really takes a historical approach to literature. He attempts to attain more objectivity by looking at statistics and graphs, instead of the actual individual books of the time. He believes that novels are meant to be seen as a collection of individual stories and that they are not simply fragments that represent different sides of the whole. His perspective, in theory, is beneficial and would provide an all together more complete understanding of literature. But, the reality is that no one can read all of the books and that the statistics that he uses to generate trends are still based on a consensus that may not agree with each person's individual perspective. In many ways, his approach to literature defeats the purpose of novels. Novels are designed to give a personal perspective to diversity in time, culture, race, gender, and many other qualities. By combining novels with statistics and history, their individuality and diversification are either decreased or erased.

SSTLS could potentially be combined very easily with biology. By percieving it as a science fiction novel, SSTLS introduces nanotechnology, an array of questionable pathogens, organ transplants, and many other feasible scientific advancements/discoveries. My first question would be how does the post-human services company plan on replaces brain cells, which never divide, and if they were replaced a person would not retain their memories. Although personally, I think that the science in SSTLS was used merely to incite fear and disgust within the reader, instead of wonder and excitement for the possibles of science.

M. Butterfly compared to SSTLS

The movie M. Butterfly and the book Super Sad True Love Story share many similarities and differences. Both stories are set in times filled with dramatic change. M. Butterfly is set during many great conflicts between east and the west, while Super Sad True Love Story is set during the downfall of America. Both stories possess white males and Asian “females” with starkly contrasting personalities. But despite all the similarities, the two movies have major differences in their opinions on morality.

                Great perversion can describe both stories according to current morals and standards, but the perversions involved in both of the stories are polar opposites. In M. Butterfly, an old story, considered to be of tragic love, is corrupted even further to demonstrate how feeble people’s perceptions of love and romance can be. The movie creates a false premise of purity by mirroring the old fashioned story’s wholesome and old fashioned values. It employs deception to depict how artificial romance and stories can be. It looks into the core of people and reveals great perversion, immorality, and unwillingness to accept one’s own depravity.

                Super Sad True Love Story, in contrast, begins with sexual deviance and extremely explicit immorality compared to current standards. At first, it appears to be a warning or sign of how the world will progress. It depicts women as having almost no restraint in their vulgarity. The world is filled sexually explicit brands and devices to rate one’s attractiveness. He creates a world where relationships and romances have become a consumer good. But despite this world of moral corruption and selfishness, at the core of people like Lenny and Eunice, people still value sanctity and purity. They long to have meaningful relationships that exist outside of the world’s immorality.

                Super Sad True Love Story’s message is that, while people’s outer character may be immoral, on the inside people always seek real love that is uninfluenced from the corruption of society. While in M. Butterfly, the author portrays people as desiring to live in what our current society perceives as illusion and indecency. The movie M. Butterfly questions our perceptions of romance, instead of defending the nature of romance, like in Super Sad True Love Story.

D.L

Changing social intimacy

                One of the major themes that “Super Sad True Love Story” develops is the changing meaning of social interaction and the value of relationships. Through exaggerated depictions of what social interactions are becoming, Shteyngart illustrates the changing dynamics of friendships and relationships. He employs Lenny’s old friends to show the transformation of friendships, his relationship with Eunice to depict how modern relationships start; and Eunice’s global teen talks represent the modern ideology about relationships. He truly emphasizes how modern culture affects old, new, and future social dynamics.

                Lenny’s reunion with his old friends is a key example of the media’s influence on even relationships with a deep history. Lenny’s apprehension about meeting his “friends” that he has known for over twenty years, simply because he has been gone for a year. Shteyngart writes “… I needed to reclaim m prime position among the boys as a kind of alternate Noah. I needed to replant myself on native soil.”(85) He portrays friendships as a stake or ownership that must be renewed and refreshed. This old relationship between friends has become shallow and fleeting, an effect of the new culture and media that is fast paced and adaptive. His friend Noah even uses the reunion as a means of work by filming the event and streaming it. It evokes the question of how can intimacy exist when nothing is private.

                The question of intimacy is continued in Lenny’s reunion with Eunice and their starting relationship. Shteyngart demonstrates that, despite all the intense emotions and thoughts going through both Lenny and Eunice’s minds, their actual interactions are reluctant and awkward. Shown in the passage, “The cab ride passed in near silence, both of us a little ashamed of the situation, each probably feelings guilty of something… mindful of the fact that we had spent less than a day together in total…” (101)Their reunion is an example of the potential that technology has to connect people from vast distances, but also how it creates illusions of closeness and compatibility. It demonstrates how desperate people many become for intimacy and affection that they will turn to complete strangers for it.

                Another interesting passage from the book that caught my attention was during a conversation between Sally and Eunice. Eunice writes “He’s not a stranger… that’s what being in a relationship is about. Talking to the other person.” Sally responds “That’s why I’m never going to be in a relationship I’m just going to get married.” Eunice displays a level of maturity that she hasn’t shown before. She symbolizes how, even though society has shift away from intimacy and direct contact, people still crave it and value it. While Sally’s response is ridiculous, her response embodies the new purpose for relationships. Relationships are simply tools in the future for status and gain. They are based on a trade for benefits, instead of a connection of emotions and ideas.

D.L